[helenol]

I personally find photographs in books work best for me when trying to identify something, be it bird, insect, flower etc. Probably because I don't have a very creative mind, and find it hard to visualise the sketch in "real life".

Anyone else have a preference?

[pduxon]

Hi Helen,

don't know about flowers or insects but for birds I much prefer artwork. The photoguides struggle to get birds in the best position best light etc. Birds like Gulls have loads of different plumages. I would like a good photoguide as a backup but have yet to find one that comes close to the field guide I use. Any recommendations would be appreciated.

There is an American Guide by a chap called Ken Kaufman where he takes photo's and enhances them with artwork.

[Charles Harper]

Hi Helen, I think we did a thread on this not too long ago, but I can't find it now. It was quite interesting, so hopefully you'll get some similar answers again. I like to have both around, using the artwork illustrations for basic i.d. work because they try to show the typical and/or critical distinguishing features, and then the photographs are there for checking, especially jizz, which I think may be the most often misrepresented feature in artwork.

[Elizabeth Bigg]

Originally posted by Charles Harper
Hi Helen, I think we did a thread on this not too long ago, but I can't find it now. It was quite interesting, so hopefully you'll get some similar answers again. I like to have both around, using the artwork illustrations for basic i.d. work because they try to show the typical and/or critical distinguishing features, and then the photographs are there for checking, especially jizz, which I think may be the most often misrepresented feature in artwork.

Shouldn't you mention Samuel Taylor Coleridge?

[Charles Harper]

I beg your pardon?

[Elizabeth Bigg]

Originally posted by Charles Harper
I beg your pardon?

You failed to acknowledge part of The Ryme of the Ancient Mariner.

[Edward]

Originally posted by Charles Harper
I beg your pardon?

I think Elizabeth is concerned, Charles, that the descendants of Coleridge may sue you for using their ancestor's poetry in your signature without crediting it. I think it's a long shot myself.

Re art v photos then art wins every time for me, largely for the reasons given by Charles. I enjoy looking at photos of birds as much as the next man but wouldn't particularly want to own a photo field guide. I looked at Kaufmann's guide for the first time last week during Iceland's Yank orgy and I thought it was hideous (the book not the orgy).

E

[Elizabeth Bigg]

Originally posted by Edward
I think Elizabeth is concerned, Charles, that the descendants of Coleridge may sue you for using their ancestor's poetry in your signature without crediting it. I think it's a long shot myself.

E

I'm not bothered about his descendants - I just think credit should be given where it's due!

[joser]

I find artwork easier to work with as a good field guide will show you all the different plumages, as someone has already mentioned, so therefore you have more chance of a correct id but I too find sketches harder to visualise as the bird tends to look nothing like I expect it to after studying a sketch!

[helenol]

Good grief, my non-existant creative mind is worse than I thought!

Apologies for repeating a thread by the way.

H

[cuddy]

I find artwork easier than photographs Helen, unless its one of my own sketches.

One day i might put one on BF to give everyone a real good laugh.

[KCFoggin]

Until I received my latest version of Sibleys guide for Eastern NA, I pretty much used Kaufman's digitally produced guide as an extremely good I.D. source. Sibleys drawings of different versions of the birds though is winning out over Kaufman these days.